Finals Flashcards
Debate
Argument with rules that ensure both sides have equal opportunity to present positions
What are the steps in a forensic progression?
1-settle through discussion
2-more formal persuasive speeches are presented
3-formal discussion with rules and an outside third party arbitrator
Affirmative
Argues in favor of a resolution or topic
Negative
Argues against a resolution or topic
Resolution
The topic of the debate
What are the types of resolutions?
Problem, Fact, Value, Policy
Proposition of problem
Used to address a controversial issue and generate solutions. (current, no loaded language, open ended, doesn’t require the group to agree on moral questions)
Proposition of fact
Can be proven true or false
Proposition of value
One belief or idea is better than another
Proposition of policy
Broad, complex, and concerning current problems facing our country and the world. Call for change in the current policy of a controversial issue with evidence on both sides.
What are the team roles in the legal model of debate?
Affirmative is the prosecution with the burden of proof, Negative is the defense with the presumption of innocence
What is the role of a constructive speech?
Introduce arguments and positions of the speaker
What is the role of a rebuttal speech?
Review and extend the constructive issues
What is the structure of a policy debate?
1st Aff, Neg, 2nd Aff, Neg, each 8 minutes long and followed by a 3 minute cross examination
1st Neg, Aff, 2nd Neg, Aff, each 5 minutes long
Argumentation
The formal process of presenting evidence in debate-3 steps
What are the steps of argumentation?
Data, Warrant, Claim, Reservation
Data
Evidence
Warrant
Reasoning-logical explanations that tie evidence to the argument
Claim
Conclusion-Need to change the status quo
Reservation
Rebuttal-Arguments against the data, warrant, and claim
What are the tests of evidence?
Relevance, sufficiency, recency, consistency, accessibility, studies
Inductive reasoning
Going from a specific instance to a general conclusion
Deductive Reasoning
Going from a generally accepted claim to a specific instance to prove that what is true in a general sense also applies to a specific instance
Syllogism
A major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion
What are the tests of inductive reasoning?
Enough examples presented? Examples are typical? Conclusion allows for exceptions?
What are the tests for syllogism?
Major premise true, minor premise true, major and minor premise relate to eachother
Sign
A way of reaching a logical conclusion based on physical evidence
Analogies
Comparisons, can be literal or figurative
What is the test for analogies?
The things being compared must be similar enough to make a valid conclusion
Cause-Effect
One thing causes another-different from a correlation/coincidence
What are the tests for cause effect reasoning?
One thing must actually be related to the other, and that the effect is actually caused by the cause
What are the fallacies?
Appeals to popular opinion, Hasty Generalization, Ad Hominem, Slippery Slope, Equivocation
Fallacy
A false or mistaken idea based on faulty reasoning
Appeals to popular opinion
Something should be supported because everyone is supporting it
Appeals to tradition
We have always done it this way, so the status quo should be maintained
Hasty Generalization
Jumping to conclusion
Ad Hominem
“Against the man” Discounting expert testimony without valid reason
Slippery Slope
Taking one measure, which might be desirable, will result in other measures that are not desirable, so the first measure should be rejected
Equivocation
Some people use the same words differently, a piece of evidence can mean something other than the way it is presented
Flowing
System of taking notes during a debate
Flow sheet
The paper on which notes are taken
Affirmative case parts
Rationale and plan
Rationale
Reason or reasons for adopting a resolution, usually presented as observations, contentions, or advantages
Plan
The affirmative proposal for putting the resolution into effect. Should solve needs or gain advantages
Status quo
The present system of laws, programs, policies etc.
Should and should/would
The proposed change should be adopted, not that it will be
The negative argues that the aff. team’s plan won’t be passed
Fiat
“Let it be done” The affirmative can argue that whether or not the plan would be passed it should be accepted in the debate
Burden of Proof
The affirmative team is obligated to show why the status quo is not working using evidence
Prima Facie Case
“On the face of things” The affirmative must provide evidence and reasons so that the judges and listeners will accept their position on face value
Issues
Important questions and considerations-Basis for structuring the affirmative case
Stock Issues
Fundamental requirements of a debate-Topicality, Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Disadvantages
Topicality
The plan and evidence must fall within the scope of the topic
Extra topicality
A solution to the problem which is outside the scope of the problem
Plan spikes
Additions to the plan that explain things like funding or enforcement
Effects topicality
When the resolution requires substantial change, and the plan provides minimal change. The plan includes something other than what is prescribed by the topic, but it has the effect of producing what the topic calls for
Harms
Show a problem with the status quo that must be significant enough to cause a change
Quantitative significance
Presented in measurable numeric form
Qualitative significance
Not measurable, but shows how the quality of a system is effected
Future significance
Something that will need to be solved in the future
Inherency
The status quo can’t be enough to fix the problem-Comes from a poor structure or lack of structure. Money is not a barrier
Attitudinal inherency
The attitudes rather than the structures cause the problems, and attitudes cannot be eliminated
Uniqueness
If the status quo can also gain advantages, the case has no inherency or uniqueness
Solvency
The affirmative plan must be capable of solving the problem and can’t create serious workability problems
Disadvantages
The plan should not create new disadvantages, and the advantages should not be outweighed by disadvantages
Paradigms
Models or ways of viewing the world
Tabula Rosa
Blank slate, debaters argue the merits of their case and also the paradigm from which they should be judged
Need plan case
The basic two part case, made of the rationale and the plan
Add-ons
Added plan benefits that may address solvency issues or list additional advantages
Timing of add-ons
First speech: Development of the plan affected
Second speech: Time left form refutations is reduced
Overviews
Off-case arguments, The first negative uses them to start with a preview of the negative case
Underviews
Summarize the negative position at the end of the first neg. constructive
Negative Topicality
The neg. argues that the aff. does not meet topicality, which is often related to the aff. definition of terms
Negative significance/harms
The Aff. team must prove a significant reason for change, so the neg. should argue the significance of each point the aff. presents
Negative inherency
The neg. argues by illustrating how the present system is already addressing the need or advantage without the resolution
Minor Repairs
Although the status quo is not perfect, it only needs minor repairs.
Alternative Causalities
Prove that the Aff. reasons for a harm are not the only ones.
Plan justification
Does the aff. rationale justify the particular plan?
Over and under justification
Over-Calling for more action than the plan provides
Under-Doing more than what is justified by the rationale
How to attack Solvency
Question the feasibility of the aff. proposal
How to attack Funding
Routinely ask how much the proposal will cost
How to attack Enforcement
Can you detect violations? Is there incentive to circumvent the plan’s intent?
How to attack Disadvantage
Illustrate the disadvantages of the plan outweigh any advantage the plan might produce
Linear disadvantages
The more you have of a particular situation, the more disadvantage occurs
Brink disadvantages
The affirmative proposal is the brink that ultimately leads to catastrophe
Thesis of a disadvantage
Link-Aft. plan takes action that links to the DA
Uniqueness-The DA does not occur under the status quo
Brink-The action taken by aff. is enough to upset status quo and plunge us into trouble
Effects-The sequence of events the aff. causes with plan
Weight- The DA is strong enough to outweigh the advantages
Where did cross examination debating debut?
University of Oregon, 1924
